Queen Mary vs Normandie

[pepperrn]

(but I've seen how blind belief in the printed page can catch you out (recently!).

.

 

To avoid confusion, please read "but I've seen how blind belief in the printed page can catch me out (recently!)" which is what I meant, but realised it could be miss-read. Thank you.

[PRINSENDAM]

Stephen.

 

I had said that this matter was, as far as I was concerned, closed. Thinking that we each had different views on this subject, I did the gentlemanly thing and bowed out. But you had to come back, and not with like response, but with a put-down. Would it not have been simpler to say "thank you" and let the matter rest? I gave you the benefit of the doubt (and doubt there is, in some eyes, othewise this would have been laid to rest in 1967).

 

 

 

As I said we are going 'round in circles here, and as we're not face to face we do not have the benefit of speech with which to convey our ideas.

 

It is possible to have two views or opinions of the same event. Both are valid to those that hold to that view, both based on fact and use fact to back up their views. Indeed they may both say "these are the facts" use the same information and still have opposing views. There are many examples.

 

Therefore for me to use the term "opinion" was not to doubt you, the book in question or Peter in any way. Nor was it intended to appear smug or "that's what you think". I stress again that I was not using that term in a derogatory way. Indeed, I believe that I held out the olive branch and said I was "giving way to "your" more informed" view (so as to keep this board from descending into flaming). I have not read the book mentioned, when I do, I will have even more information on which to base my view and opinion of what happened in 1967. One needs to read the whole book (and see the quotes in context) to help understand the mess that Cunard got themselves into back then ("Authorised by Cunard" eh?).

 

After reading, I may then also share your belief in those facts (but I've seen how blind belief in the printed page can catch you out (recently!). But before you think I'm having a dig about this book and respond, I am not, that is a warning to me, not you. Simple errors do occur, a typo, a small slip where dates are concerned (eg "2006"), we've all seen them ourselves, there are some typos in the paragragh above. How many times have you read something and thought "well, that ain't right" But I again stress that I am NOT talking of this book, a book I've not read).

 

But I have the right to my own opinions now and in the future. You may not agree with my reading of the facts and think that I am wrong. That is your right. But you must respect that they are my views even if you think that I'm wrong. Can we agree to disagree? Can we be gentlemen about this? I can.

 

Perhaps we can also agree on the following:

 

Cunard decided to use the name "Elizabeth" for Q4.

They never intended to use "the second" (or "II").

The card said "Queen Elizabeth".

HMQ said "the second" at the launch.

Cunard were "caught on the hop" by this.

When she entered service the ship did not bear the name "2nd" (!)

She also did not bear the name "II" (!)

Most people read Queen Elizabeth II as Queen Elizabeth the second.

Most people read Queen Elizabeth 2 as Queen Elizabeth two.

As she is named Elizabeth, she is namesake to HMQ. (Whatever else the relationship of the names is, beyond that)

She is one hell of a lady.:)

 

Beyond that, we agree to differ!

 

Please, let's move on...

 

 

Pepper,

 

I had no intention of putting you down so apologies if I came over that way. Sorry!!!!!!!

 

Just put it down to frustration. There are three simple facts of all this:

 

1. Cunard intended to name the ship QUEEN ELIZABETH.

 

2. HM added the words "THE SECOND"

 

3. Cunard had to cover the insult to the Scots and so concocted the story about the ship being named for the earlier liner and not for HM.

 

Also in the authorised version of the story you will read the reason why the name on her bow appears as Queen Elizabeth 2 and not QUEEN ELIZABETH II. Note the use of caps and lower case. Using upper and lower case with arabic 2 instead of the roman II was done because it was the 1960s and the typeface looked modern than the old style all caps QUEEN ELIZABETH.

 

It is often said that II is used for monarchy and 2 is for ships. That is another concocted story. When the 1936 QUEEN MARY entered service she borrowed the name from the Clyde steamer of the same name. The steamer was renamed QUEEN MARY II.... not QUEEN MARY 2. Also... in Southampton in the 1930s there was a small steamer named MAURETANIA II. The ship was so named so as to hold the name for Cunard. Cunard arranged this with Red Funnel Steamers so that they could have the name for their liner which entered service in 1939.

 

Stephen

[pepperrn]

Pepper,

 

I had no intention of putting you down so apologies if I came over that way. Sorry!!!!!!!

 

Just put it down to frustration.

 

It is often said that II is used for monarchy and 2 is for ships. That is another concocted story. When the 1936 QUEEN MARY entered service she borrowed the name from the Clyde steamer of the same name. The steamer was renamed QUEEN MARY II.... not QUEEN MARY 2. Also... in Southampton in the 1930s there was a small steamer named MAURETANIA II. The ship was so named so as to hold the name for Cunard. Cunard arranged this with Red Funnel Steamers so that they could have the name for their liner which entered service in 1939.

 

Stephen

 

Stephen

 

Many thanks for another very informative post, I too am sorry if I in any caused the frustration. Not my intention either.

 

The Clyde Steamer I knew about, the Southampton Steamer I did not (or, had forgotten, old age). I am already with you re: upper and lower case.

 

I enjoy sharing what little help and information I have, and I hope that I will be able to come to you in the future for information and that I will not cause you any offence, I'm here to make friends, not lose them by what may appear a sometimes short, "on-line" manner.

 

With thanks and very best wishes,

[PRINSENDAM]

Stephen

 

Many thanks for another very informative post, I too am sorry if I in any caused the frustration. Not my intention either.

 

The Clyde Steamer I knew about, the Southampton Steamer I did not (or, had forgotten, old age). I am already with you re: upper and lower case.

 

I enjoy sharing what little help and information I have, and I hope that I will be able to come to you in the future for information and that I will not cause you any offence, I'm here to make friends, not lose them by what may appear a sometimes short, "on-line" manner.

 

With thanks and very best wishes,

 

 

Pepper,

 

Thanks to you too. We are both on the same wavelength!

 

BTW... do you have a copy of Warwick & Flayheart's QE2?

 

Second edition dustjacket was printed with the subtitle:

 

'Queen Elizabeth II'

 

Ron warwick was none too happy about it!

 

Stephen

[pepperrn]

BTW... do you have a copy of Warwick & Flayheart's QE2?

Second edition dustjacket was printed with the subtitle:

'Queen Elizabeth II'

Ron warwick was none too happy about it!

Stephen

 

Stephen

No, I don't have that book, but have seen it (a mate has it). Read it once, will borrow again. Will have to look at that dust jacket! No idea which edition he has. It amazes me how much Ron Warwick looks like his father William. The beard helps! but even so. Have you seen "Queen Elizabeth 2, a Magnificent Millennium" Buchanan. Or "Cunard:150 Glorious Years" Maxtone-Graham? One of my favorite books remains "British Superliners of the Sixties" Dawson, keep going back to it!

 

Off now so I've time to get to the Queen Elizabeth II (noooo - don't lets start that again!!!!) TERMINAL (phew) Southampton. Got a certain young lady (by the name of Mary) to see leave for New York, not long before I'm using the terminal myself for a similar crossing.

 

Thanks,

[guernseyguy]

One of my favorite books remains "British Superliners of the Sixties" Dawson, keep going back to it!

 

Agree - absolutely fascinating - and with only the QE2 remaining of the trio, when she goes a chapter closes for ever.

 

Peter

[travel-to-go]

Honest, when I wrote that title, I did not think about the names of the people posting on this subject! <teehee! really!>

 

But being the dutiful (and unknowledgeable) cc'er, I grabbed my copy of Commodore Ronald W. Warwick's "QE2 The Cunard Line Flagship, Queen Elizabeth 2" (third edition) which I have right here with me in Ormond Beach, Florida, personally autographed by the Commodore himself (I only brought my most prized possessions with me when I came down to see my father), I grabbed it to see if this were the book in question in the above posts. I guess not. No mention of Flayheart. If it is the same title, they have corrected the dust jacket.

Here is an excerpt from page 60.

 

"There was no question what Sir Basil and the Cunard board desired. The name was discussed with Lord Adeane, the queen's private secretary, and it was decided simply to ask that the new ship be named Queen Elizabeth, because by the time of her commissioning, both of the earlier Queens would be withdrawn from service and she could assume the name vacated by one of her predecessors.

"Launching day on the Clyde was pleasant, as the crowds milled around the launching site or lined the riverbank opposite to watch the show.Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II moved to the front of the launching platform and was handed an envelope by John Rannie with the name of the ship inside. This was a tradition because many years before someone purportedly had forgotten the name of a ship about to be launched. The envelope remained unopened as the queen stepped forward and uttered the words,

'I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth the Second. May God Bless her and all who sail in her'

 

"Sir Basil Smallpiece was overjoyed at the sovereign's alteration of the name.* He could not have been more delighted with having the third of the great royal Cunarders named in this manner. The decision promptly was made to style the giant liner Queen Elizabeth 2 using the numeral two to differentiate the ship from the sovereign."

 

"*Sir Basil Smallpiece, Of Comets and Queens (Shrewsbury, 1980)"

 

Now I don't pretend to believe everything I read. And as these are both recollections and by necessity personal spins of the interpretation of an event witnessed, or not, by the claimants, there can be differences in individual writings on the same subject and events. I was once invovled in a hit and run accident. At least 7 people, including me, saw the license plate of the gentleman in question, and immediately committed it to memory. It was truly seared into my brain. I was late for a Doctor's appointment and this gent had just crushed the front end of my car!.Would you believe every single one of us had a different version of that licenese plate, consisting of 6 digits, three numeric and three alphabetic? BTW, I still have two of his hubcaps hanging in my garage.

So no, Just because someone was an eye-witness to an event- and especially one with an emotional attachment to it, I don't believe his or her version of events to necessarily be gospel. (Heck, even the gospels have differences!) And our recollections and colorations of events do change with time and the telling. I will swear to this day when I rode my tricycle out of our garage into the path of Mr. Rose's truck to the consternation of and direct disobeyance of my mother's orders that, at the last minute, I saw her looking down at me in anger from the kitchen window over the garage. My older sister tells me that is impossible. There was no kitchen window! Much less over the garage. T'was surely my conscience that made me see those angery flashing eyes.

 

Karie,

Who is still traumatized by my running my trike into that pick-up, and those angry flashing eyes! AND I remember the root beer lollipop the doctor at the emergency room gave me, and the cool band-aid on my skinned knee.

 

LET THE GAMES RESUME!

"After you, Alphonse",

"After you, Gaston! "

[pepperrn]

Honest, when I wrote that title, I did not think about the names of the people posting on this subject! <teehee! really!>

 

Karie,

 

LET THE GAMES RESUME!

"After you, Alphonse",

"After you, Gaston! "

 

Karie

 

I love your posts, as for the content of this one, recollection and memories of past events... I'm saying nothing.

 

("You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment" quote)

[PRINSENDAM]

No mention of Flayheart. If it is the same title, they have corrected the dust jacket.

Here is an excerpt from page 60.

 

 

Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II moved to the front of the launching platform and was handed an envelope by John Rannie with the name of the ship inside. 'I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth the Second. May God Bless her and all who sail in her'

 

 

 

 

Now I don't pretend to believe everything I read. And as these are both recollections and by necessity personal spins of the interpretation of an event witnessed, or not, by the claimants, there can be differences in individual writings on the same subject and events.

 

Karie,

 

 

"

 

 

Karie,

 

In this case we do have one piece if hard evidence. The small card with the name QUEEN ELIZABETH whitten on is held in the University of Glasgow Archives.

 

 

The first edition of the book QE2 was co-authored by Bill Flayheart and Ron Warwick. Bill was not involved in the production of the second edition. My copy is 15,000 miles away in Sydney. I couldn't pick it up to check. ;)

 

Stephen